tc_list_project_roles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the return format (a dict with 'roles' as a list of strings) and the typical role values (ADMIN and USER), which aids the agent in understanding what to expect beyond the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with a clear structure that includes a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: one required parameter and a clear return type. With rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects. It lacks only deeper context like error cases or prerequisites, but these are less critical for such a straightforward read-only operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates 'project_id: Project ID' without adding any meaning beyond the parameter name and type. No details about format, constraints, or examples are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'List the roles available in a project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tc_list_project_members by focusing on roles (typically ADMIN and USER) rather than members.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need project roles) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state exclusions. Sibling tools include tc_get_project and tc_list_project_members, but no guidance is provided on how to choose between them.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.